TN: DeKalb County, Tennessee considers alert system for registrants
Tonight, the DeKalb County Tennessee commission will consider adopting a resolution to establish a method of notification possibly through 911 to inform residents in a neighborhood if a sex offender has moved within 1,000 feet of a residence, school or childcare facility. Notification fees would be paid for by the sex offender along with his or her sex offender registry administration fees. Any residence, school, or child-care facility within one-thousand (1,000) feet from the closest proximity, structure to structure, of a sex offender’s residence will receive a notification.
We sincerely hope our sister organizations and members in Tennessee are aware of and on top of this, but just in case…
Here are some reasons for NOT passing this law:
Creates a False Sense of Security: Most sexual offenses are committed by people known to the victim, not strangers moving into a neighborhood. This system distracts residents from real risk factors and meaningful safety strategies.
Abuses the 911 System: 911 infrastructure is for emergencies. Using it for routine notifications risks overloading or desensitizing the system, which could delay response to actual life-threatening situations.
Encourages Vigilantism and Harassment: Broadcasting someone’s arrival through a county-run system increases the likelihood of threats, harassment, property damage, or violence. That puts families, neighbors, and first responders at risk.
Punishes Families Who Have Committed No Crime: Spouses, children, and family members living with the registrant will also become targets of community hostility and retaliation.
Increases Homelessness and Instability: If no one will rent or sell to registrants, they become transient or homeless. That makes monitoring harder and public safety worse.
Likely Unconstitutional and Vulnerable to Lawsuits: Policies that publicly expose and target individuals beyond state law have been challenged across the country. This could saddle DeKalb County with expensive litigation.
Shifts Costs Unfairly to Individuals: Requiring registrants to pay for notification systems is punishing beyond their sentence and could be challenged as excessive or unlawful under state and constitutional law.
No Evidence It Reduces Reoffending: There is no credible research showing community notification systems reduce sexual reoffense rates. Most studies show they either have no effect or increase instability.
Creates Liability for the County: What happens when someone doesn’t get notified due to a system failure? The county could face legal exposure for technical errors or failures.
Reinforces Fear Instead of Real Prevention: Real prevention involves education, treatment, monitoring based on risk, and community support. This policy relies on fear, not facts or effectiveness.
The county commission meeting will be at 6:30 p.m. in the auditorium of the county complex. You can contact the county commissioners below to tell them this is a bad idea.
County Commissioners District 1
Tom Chandler
901-326-8901 [email protected]
Daniel Cripps
615-489-7201 [email protected]
County Commissioners District 2
Myron Rhody
615-684-5495
[email protected]
Sabrina Farler
615-464-8624
[email protected]
County Commissioners District 3
Brandon Donnell
615-464-7996
[email protected]
County Commissioners District 4
Tony ‘Cully’ Culwell
615-417-3056 [email protected]
Greg Matthews
615-839-4923 [email protected]
County Commissioners District 5
Glynn Merriman
615-597-1066 [email protected]
Larry Green
615-406-5547 [email protected]
County Commissioners District 6
Jeff Barnes
931-409-4282
[email protected]
Andy Pack
615-684-2532 [email protected]
County Commissioners District 7
Beth Pafford
615-597-0609
[email protected]
Mathias Anderson
615-318-8223 [email protected]
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am wondering about the Constitutionality of many things on the registry including these new proposals. When my case was adjudicated the registry existed in a complete different form than it does today. Almost all of us can say that very same thing.
The Constitution only allows a persons rights to be removed through adjudication. Since we cannot be fined or incarcerated without due process the fee for notifications is not something that we have had due process on. Carrying it further the Courts have upheld that same right to do process still extends to registrants.
Since we have the right to due process and also to the protections offered by the 14th Amendments equal protection clause, one could argue that any registry modifications or limits that came into being after our sentencing cannot be applied to us. This would make the registry insolvent as they modify it every year. There is no way that LEO could possibly keep up with applying the registry requirements differently to everyone.
Since there is no drug dealer registry or drunk driver registry we have proof that the mere existence of the sex offender registry is a violation of the 14th amendment.
So a challenge to this or any modification using this argument could be fruitful for everyone and effectively reign in the registry altogether.
James
My crime was 4 years before a registry even existed, however, almost all of the effects were applied to me, other than a few. For example, if my registry office decided to charge to register, it would apply for all of us going to that office. That would really suck as payment for registering, judges have ruled legal as an administrative fees and legal.